School Security

[SBinRockrimmon]

Just curious if anyone saw or read the NRA response and offered solution to REAL security in our schools. I'm curious as to if the Timberlane SB would be open to discussing this program with parents and local law enforcement. Link to the full transcript.

http://home.nra.org/pdf/Transcript_PDF.pdf

[Rob C]

Posting the document so folks don't have to link to it.

[Rob C]

I see a lot of holes in his argument and I dont believe his solution is ideal.

He points the finger at the entertainment industry (video games, movies, TV), gun free zones and the media. What he doesn't mention is that our neighbors to the North are exposed to everything he listed, just like us, yet they don't have the same issues we do. They have 35 million citizens and only approximately 200 gun homicides per year (.0006%). That compares to 300 million in America with 8-9 thousand homicides from guns (.002%). Why is that? Could it be because our mental illness treatment isn't what it should be and is not nearly as good as Canada's? Could it be that Canada's process to obtain a firearm is very different and more rigorous than our own? Could it be that guns and ammuition just simply are not as readily available there, or anywhere else in the world, as they are here? Could it be Canada does not allow assault rifles?

Why would anyone need an assault rifle that can fire 4-6 bullets a second. My understanding is the AR 15, that was used in the last three attacks on innocent Americans, can do just that. A legal gun with legal ammunition that can destroy so much in so little time. Why is that necessary? Why would anyone need high capacity magazines or clips? Why are these necessary? Why is anyone allowed to walk off the steet and buy these things so easily?

What NRA offers may be a deterrent but I don't believe it gets to the root of the matter. That's what we need to do. Every other industrialized country in the world does not have these problems, why do we?

Some interesting statistics I've heard over the last week.

The US has 300 million privately owned guns which equates to 50% of all the private owned guns in the world.
40% of gun purchases are done without a background check because of the gun show loophole.
Semi automatic assault rifles can fire 4-6 bullets a second or 40-60 bullets every 10 seconds.

One more thing. The idea of volunteers roaming the playground with guns to secure the area is something I'm not interested in at all. This was Suggested by the NRA in their statement.

[ebakenoza]

so,Rob,what's your solution?

[SBinRockrimmon]

Why would anyone need an assault rifle that can fire 4-6 bullets a second. My understanding is the AR 15, that was used in the last three attacks on innocent Americans, can do just that. A legal gun with legal ammunition that can destroy so much in so little time. Why is that necessary? Why would anyone need high capacity magazines or clips? Why are these necessary? Why is anyone allowed to walk off the steet and buy these things so easily?

For now I'll only address your lack of understanding firearms. Clearly you are getting your "facts" from the media, unfortunately they are mostly incorrect. An AR-15 fires the same amount of bullets as any other modern semi-automatic firearm. It fires one round per trigger pull. It is limited to how fast the user can do so. What is the difference between having multiple 10 round magazines vs. 30 round magazines? Do you have any idea how quickly an empty magazine can be dumped and a fresh one inserted? I assume you've never purchased a legal firearm or gone through the paperwork or required background check. Do you even know what makes the civilian version of an AR-15 different than any other common hunting rifle? Please be specific and post what features make it suddenly become an "assault" rifle. Not sure if you are aware that there is no true classification of firearms that makes it an "assault" rifle, so the lawmakers had to come up with a list of features to ban. So tell us what those features are and what they do.

Is far as need.....That than be said of many things. Why does anyone NEED a 55" TV you can see the same programs on a smaller and more efficient TV. Why does a single person NEED a truck or SUV? Why does anyone NEED a sports car that is capable of going way past the speed limit. Why does anyone NEED 32 oz. of soda? Why does a couple with no children NEED a 2000+ sq. ft. house? Should all these things be banned because there is no NEED for them? Who gets to decide the NEED?

Just an FYI the last "Assault" weapons ban expired in 2004, if we look at the numbers it really didn't seem to have much impact.

Year #
2011 323
2010 358
2009 348
2008 375
2007 450
2006 436
2005 442
2004 393
2003 392
2002 488
2001 386
2000 411

Source: US DOJ FBI

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

I retrieved each yearly metric by clicking on the respective link. Table 20.

Rob, what is your solution? Why would you oppose properly trained armed people guarding our schools? Do you have issue with an armed policeman present at any of the schools in the Timberlane district?

P.S. - Like it or not the USA is the only country with a 2nd amendment. Before you argue that the 2nd is in reference to the militia, the highest court in this country has already affirmed that the 2nd is in fact an individual right. I know the folks on the left don't like it, but it's said and done and there is now case law to support that fact.

I wonder how many liberals realize that President Clinton wanted to put armed guards in school 12 years ago. Somehow I don't recall it being such a crazy idea then....

http://beforeitsnews.com/opinion-conser ... 46306.html

[JC]

If putting a police officer in every school prevents even one innocent child from losing their life, wouldn't it be worth it?

[SBinRockrimmon]

If putting a police officer in every school prevents even one innocent child from losing their life, wouldn't it be worth it?

I would prefer our tax dollars go to this idea rather than foreign aid to some country that could care less about our presence.

The amount of a single saved child would be priceless to the child's parents.

[Rob C]

I don't know what the solution is but I do know what we can do to try to prevent something like this from happening again. We can take better care of our mentally ill. We can model our licensing procedures after a country that doesnt have these issues and doesnt have loopholes. We can ban and buy back high capacity magazines and clips, while dumping and reloading a clip may take very little time it does take some time. We can ban and buy back weapons that can fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. I spoke to most of these things in my previous post.

Regarding semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles I really don't care what you call them and what is similar to and different from any other gun. What I do care about is why we need to have weapons that can deliver such destruction in so little time. We need to draw the line somewhere, there are many weapons the military uses but I am not legally allowed to possess. Certainly we can all agree limiting the destruction one can do with a legal gun is a good thing!

While I'm no expert on guns I do know different guns require different trigger finger pressures and they utilize different reloading mechanisms which can delay the firing of the next bullet. I'm fairly certain semi automatic guns from years ago did not fire and reload as quickly as they do today.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to placing a police officer at every school if those smarter than I thought that would be the best path to follow. Who could argue with what JC wrote! What I would not be interested in is another solution offered by the NRA that included armed volunteers guarding the playground. It's in their statement at the end.

[SBinRockrimmon]

I don't know what the solution is but I do know what we can do to try to prevent something like this from happening again. We can take better care of our mentally ill. We can model our licensing procedures after a country that doesnt have these issues and doesnt have loopholes. We can ban and buy back high capacity magazines and clips, while dumping and reloading a clip may take very little time it does take some time. We can ban and buy back weapons that can fire a lot of bullets in a short amount of time. I spoke to most of these things in my previous post.

I agree we can take better care of out mentally ill. What loopholes are you talking about, or is it just more buzzwords you've heard from the media? You admit that you know little about firearms yet you want to ban them because you are ignorant about how they operate. Seems a bit irrational to indicate such a thing when you have so little knowledge on the subject matter. For the record there are very few firearms that use clips. Calling them clips instead of magazines is more buzzwords used by the media and movies. As for buying back or issuing a ban without a grandfather clause would be the equivalent to confiscation and would never fly in this country. Any form of confiscation in this country would opposed with force.

Regarding semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles I really don't care what you call them and what is similar to and different from any other gun. What I do care about is why we need to have weapons that can deliver such destruction in so little time. We need to draw the line somewhere, there are many weapons the military uses but I am not legally allowed to possess.

So this just proves my point to how ignorant you are on the subject of firearms. Perhaps you should educate yourself on what it is you wish to ban prior to saying they should be banned.

Certainly we can all agree limiting the destruction one can do with a legal gun is a good thing!

You couldn't be more wrong. A gun is a tool, and much like any other tool, when used improperly it can cause destruction. A great deal of destruction were caused by a group of people armed with nothing more than box cutters. Timothy McVeigh caused a large amount of destruction without firing a single shot. People intent on doing harm will do so no matter how many laws or bans are put into place. So, I and many others do NOT agree with your assumption.

While I'm no expert on guns I do know different guns require different trigger finger pressures and they utilize different reloading mechanisms which can delay the firing of the next bullet. I'm fairly certain semi automatic guns from years ago did not fire and reload as quickly as they do today.

You are once again just indicating your lack of knowledge on the subject matter.

I certainly wouldn't be opposed to placing a police officer at every school if those smarter than I thought that would be the best path to follow. Who could argue with what JC wrote!

I will go one step further and state that it should be operated similar to the air marshal program. The armed police officer should appear to be a teachers aid or custodian, etc. Or in high schools they could pose as students. The element of surprise is crucial for this to work. If we are talking about a single police officer on display in full uniform it wouldn't work. While it may be a deterrent to some attacks, there are other sick and deranged people that will simply make sure the attack begins by disabling the uniformed officer first.

What I would not be interested in is another solution offered by the NRA that included armed volunteers guarding the playground. It's in their statement at the end.

If you read a bit closer the NRA is indicating that any volunteers would need to be fully trained (and I presume certified) and that it would be a good volunteer role for a retired police officer or for the properly trained retired military personnel. I guess you only pay attention to what you want to hear. In your mind NRA=bad and any left wing liberal plan to hinder American's rights=good.

[SBinRockrimmon]

P.S. - I see you didn't even acknowledge that the numbers I posed above for deaths by rifle indicate that the last "assault" weapons ban had no effect on reducing deaths. From 1994-2004 magazines (or clips as you like to call them) were limited to no more than 10 rounds. The fancy cosmetic features you admittedly know nothing about were also banned, despite the fact that the common 30-06 hunting rifle round is considerably more powerful than the .223/5.56 round that the civilian AR-15 "assault" rifle uses.

[JC]

If you read a bit closer the NRA is indicating that any volunteers would need to be fully trained (and I presume certified) and that it would be a good volunteer role for a retired police officer or for the properly trained retired military personnel. I guess you only pay attention to what you want to hear. In your mind NRA=bad and any left wing liberal plan to hinder American's rights=good.

I agree this would be a great job for a retired police officer or military, who better to perform this task. This is exactly what the NRA meant, a volunteer would be completely trained obviously.

People have their beliefs and they don't like to look beyond that and typically will not go the extra mile to educate themselves and guns are a great example of this. This was a horrible tragedy but the guns did not kill these people the man holding them did. Putting more laws on the books is not going to protect our kids. Today 2 fireman were killed in a shooting, the man that committed this crime was out on parole which makes him a felon and should not have been possessing a gun. He however was able to get a gun, why because he is a criminal, that's what they do break laws, do you honestly think he would participate in a buy back program?

As far as the mentally ill, this country definately falls short. Years ago we treated the mentally in in institutions, some probably not so great and needed improvement for sure. I have read many articles and have spoken to people that have someone in their family with mental illness and have been told they only way we can get them off the street or help is when they commit a crime and then they go to jail. Perhaps the institutions of old are not the answer but putting someone in a safe environment and getting them some help would be better than waiting for them to commit a crime. With our current situation with health care, I don't see this changing.

[safety frog]

We have armed guards, for banks, armored cars, airports, professional football stadium's, baseball, basketball and hockey games and transit sytems. Are our children any less important?

No one answer, but protecting children should be obvious if we protect folks at the above locations with armed guards. Killers of innocent folks in this country are law breaking criminals, new fire rm laws will not prevent future killers.

[Rob C]

[Rob C]

Columbine High School Had Armed Guard During Massacre In 1999

...

But having armed security on-site failed to prevent the deadliest mass shooting at an American high school.

In 1999, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 15 people and wounded 23 more at Columbine High School. The destruction occurred despite the fact that there was an armed security officer at the school and another one nearby -- exactly what LaPierre argued on Friday was the answer to stopping "a bad guy with a gun."

Deputy Neil Gardner was a 15-year veteran of the Jefferson County, Colo., Sheriff’s Office assigned as the uniformed officer at Columbine. According to an account compiled by the police department, Gardner fired on Harris but was unsuccessful in stopping him:

Gardner, seeing Harris working with his gun, leaned over the top of the car and fired four shots. He was 60 yards from the gunman. Harris spun hard to the right and Gardner momentarily thought he had hit him. Seconds later, Harris began shooting again at the deputy.

After the exchange of gunfire, Harris ran back into the building. Gardner was able to get on the police radio and called for assistance from other Sheriff’s units. "Shots in the building. I need someone in the south lot with me."

The second officer was Deputy Paul Smoker, a motorcycle patrolman who was near the school writing a speeding ticket. When he heard a dispatch of a woman injured at the high school, he responded. He, too, fired at Harris but didn't stop him.

LaPierre said having armed security on the scene is necessary so someone is there to shoot back. "The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," he said. "Would you rather have your 911 call bring a good guy with a gun from a mile away -- or a minute away?"

But in chaotic situations, it's often impossible to identify the "bad guy," as Smoker said in his account of Columbine: "There was an unknown inside a school. We didn't know who the 'bad guy' was but we soon realized the sophistication of their weapons. These were big bombs. Big guns. We didn’t have a clue who 'they' were."

"That's the point," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) at a press conference on Friday afternoon, denouncing LaPierre's solution. "There were two armed law enforcement officers at that campus, and you see what happened. Fifteen dead ... 23 wounded."

New Jersey Chris Christie (R) also said on Friday that he doesn't believe having armed guards will make schools safer or encourage learning.

On Wednesday, violence prevention researchers and a large number of education, health and civic groups discouraged putting more guns in schools.

"Inclinations to intensify security in schools should be reconsidered," they wrote in a statement. "We cannot and should not turn our schools into fortresses. Effective prevention cannot wait until there is a gunman in a school parking lot. We need resources such as mental health supports and threat assessment teams in every school and community so that people can seek assistance when they recognize that someone is troubled and requires help."

Research also has shown that highly visible efforts to increase school safety -- such as armed guards -- make children feel less safe at school, undermining their ability to learn.

The NRA did not return a request for comment, and LaPierre refused to answer questions during his press conference Friday. Instead, the organization said it would begin responding to media inquiries on Monday. LaPierre is also scheduled to be a guest on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday.

[Rob C]

Annual Firearm homicides total

Canada
2009: 173
2008: 200
2007: 188
2006: 190
2005: 223
2004: 173
2003: 161
2002: 152
2001: 171
2000: 184
1999: 165
1998: 151
1997: 186
1996: 207
1995: 168

USA
2011: 12,664
2010: 13,164
2009: 13,752
2008: 14,224
2007: 14,916

Population
Canada - 34,482,779
USA - 311,591,917

9 times the amount of people 80 times the amount of gun related homicides in 2009.